זעזוע נורא: אמש הגיעו קומץ סיקריקים מארגון אתרא קדישא להפגנה מבישה מול ביתו של ראב"ד העדה
החרדית מרן הגר"מ שטרנבוך שליט"א.
זו תקופה ארוכה שאותם גורמים קיצוניים ושוליים מהינים לתקוף רבנים בישראל שאינם "מישרים קו" עם גחמותיהם, רק לא מזמן התפרסם כיצד תקף סיקריק מאתרא קדישא את הגר"נ קופשיץ שליט"א מרא דאתרא בבית שמש, וכמו כן העיזו לשלוח ידם בגדולי האדמורי"ם ותקפו כבר כמה פעמים את כ"ק מרנן האדמורי"ם מתולדות אהרן דושינסקיא ורחמסטריווקא שליט"א.
אותם נערי שוליים שאף אינם נמנים על ציבור העדה החרדית הגיעו אתמול ברוב חוצפתם ועזותם להפגין מול ביתו של מרן הגר"מ שטרנבוך שליט"א, כשהם נושאים בידם כרזות נאצה נגד הראב"ד מהסוג הגרוע ביותר, "רבאיי רפורמי" ועוד סיסמאות נבזיות, וזעקו דברי בלע וגנאי נגד הראב"ד שליט"א.
המדובר כעת בענין פרוייקט "מרום ירושלים" במתחם שנלר בירושלים, כאשר בד"ץ העדה החרדית החליטו בשני דיונים נפרדים למנות בתור מפקח במקום את הרב רפאל ליפשיץ הי"ו, מומחה ותיק בעניני קברים ומערות קבורה שידיו רב לו בהצלת קברי ישראל כבר עשרות בשנים.
לעומת זאת אנשי אתרא קדישא לא הסכימו עם החלטת הבד"ץ, ודרשו למנות דוקא את אחד מאנשיהם בשם ישראל אייזנבאך למפקח במקום, וכהמשך למאבקם מול העדה החרדית ורבניה הגיעו אמש קומץ סיקריקים מאתרא קדישא ברוב חוצפה ועזות פנים להפגנה נבזית נגד מרן הראב"ד שליט"א, העומד בחוד החנית של המאבק נגד ארגון אתרא קדישא ובראש המלחמה למען שמירת חומות התורה וההלכה.
בתוך כך בד"ץ העדה החרדית מגיעים כעת בהרכב מלא בהשתתפות הגאב"ד הגרי"ט וייס והראב"ד הגר"מ שטרנבוך שליט"א לבדיקת השטח במתחם שנלר, זאת כפי שהוחלט בישיבת הבד"ץ ביום חמישי האחרון בלשכת הבד"ץ בבנייני זופניק של העדה החרדית.
נוסיף, כי בעדה החרדית אומרים היום כי ההפגנה המבישה שקיימו אמש קומץ סיקריקי אתרא קדישא נגד מרן הראב"ד שליט"א, מטרתה באופן ברור להוות אמצעי לחץ נגד הראב"ד שליט"א ובד"ץ העדה החרדית שלא ישתתפו בביקור המתוכנן היום במתחם שנלר אשר נקבע בהחלטת הבד"ץ בשבוע שעבר.
נמשיך ונעדכן בהמשך בעז"ה
.
Weren't they proven to be extortionists a la Jesse Jackson and rev al sharpton (in bet shemesh)?
ReplyDeleteThey must have learned from get ora. Same tactics, same purpose ("matarah"; can't find the right word in english.) Plain and simple extortion.
What are "Sikrikin"?
ReplyDeleteFourteen Questions about and for so-called "Sikirikin"
1. Are Sikrikin also "Charedim" and if not why not and if yes how and why? What are they?
2. Can a Modern Orthodox Jew or a Rebbetzin or any type of Jew also be one of them, or is an elite club that is open only to certain types?
3. What is the true verifiable quantifiable difference, really, between Sikirin and Charedim in both Halchic and sociological views?
4. How come in the pics posted with this post there are clean-shaven, Chasidish and Yeshivish people all protesting, are they all "Sikrikin" as well as "Charedim", one or or both or neither,or are they just Sikirikin?
5. Where is the "border" where a "regular" Charedi stops being a Charedi and then becomes a Sikriki, or is there no border or difference?
6. Who made up the name Sikrin and why?
7. When did this term become popular?
8. What is the difference between "Sikirin" and "kanoim", "Baryonim", "fanatics", "batlonim' and other similar terms?
9. What are the difference and similarities between the way Sikrikin are viewed by their supporters versus their opponents?
10. Are only Sikrikin "bullies" or can Charedim also be bullies or worse?
11. Do Sikrikin choose and like to be called that, and do they have a formal or informal way of registering as offivcial Sikrikin?
12. Do Sikirikin also follow "Daas Torah" and do they have an identifiable rabbinic leadership?
13. Why do Sikirikin not accept that authority of the Eidha HaChareidis?
14. Why don't they get some real life job training and get real jobs and go to work and support their families, and how come they have time to demonstrate if they are in Yeshivas and Kollelim, what is their Heter to do what they do?
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind:
ReplyDeletePot, meet kettle.
ReplyDeleteYou're both the pot and kettle; how was your conversation with yourself?
ReplyDeleteIt is thy who has reaped the whirlwind you have sowed.
ReplyDeleteSikrikin is a name invented for them by their detractors. The name only came about within the past 5 or 6 years or so.
ReplyDeleteThey accept no one's authority other than their own and answer to no authority and are part of no recognized kehila.
Yes, a MO Jew can be one of them.
In the pictures you also see some pedestrian bystanders who happened to be at the scene and wondering what was going on milled about and ended up in the photos.
At last, a leader of the eidah hareidit suffers from the bad conduct of those anti-zionist extremists. Like garne said: pot calling the kettle black.
ReplyDeleteAs long as they went against the others, they kept their mouths shut.
"13. Why do Sikirikin not accept the authority of the Eidah
ReplyDeleteHaChareidis, who do they accept by the way besides themselves and do
they see the good and importance of anyone besides their own points of
view?"
It is not only them who do not accept the Eda, it is also the Eda itself. Or vice versa. R' Shternbuch was in machlokes with his own BD in the Eda, and has since withdrawn from the BD and the old Eda. It is the same old story.
An MO critic wrote several years ago that hareidim keep moving to the right, and delegitimise the "left" who they call reform or conservative. He said that if a group to the right of satmar or Eda come on board, would that make satmar reform? this is precisely what has happened. But there is also a pecking order. The left wing eda knock the right wing hareidi, who in turn knock the left wing hareid who then knock the MO, who then knock left wing MO, who then either knock reform or the Ultra O.
I guess religion is tough if you have noone to knock and call an apikores.
I doubt he can come up with an accurate description when his goal is to attack those he deems too religious, without admitting that intention of his. What better way to do so that to invent a fictitious scenario, as he's done?
ReplyDeleteNeither garnel nor myself are justifying anything. We're simply saying that there is karma.
ReplyDeleteBut it is also kind of true. Perhaps the direction of the criticism is not all one way.
ReplyDeleteI heard from R' Bulman ztl that there is actually an intentional "davka" mentality in (ultra)orthodoxy. Example he gave was aliyah to Eretz Yisroel. He said that before modern zionism, the aliyah was from frum people, Gedolim followers of the Gra and besht, and it was a great mitzvah. when the secular idea of zionism came about, they suddenly looked for all sorts of reasons to oppose it, and hence also to oppose moving to Israel.
In fact, the very term "orthodox" is only a reaction to the apikorsim of reform, when German Rabbonim started calling themselves orthodox.
I argued earlier about how the head of the Sanhedrin could not be someone who is a machmir, eg a very old man. Thus, the idea of stricter being better is not necessarily an ancient one.
it is quite an organised rabble, and presumably they have amongst them some "rabbis". It is also not a new phenomenon. however, their predecessors would attack people like R' Kook, and his son R' Tzvi Yehuda. R' Tzvi Yehuda Kook would go to the shiur of the Brisker Rav, and would be attacked by the same kind of rabble while he was there.
ReplyDelete@Moshe Ahron - you continue in your path of ignoring obvious facts while equating mountains and molehills.
ReplyDeleteRav Sternbuch is only one of many who have difficulty with accepting Rav Kook - the Chazon Ish and many of the Litvishce and Chassidic world also have major difficulty. No one will deny that Rav Kook was a tzadik but many if not most will admit that his hashkofa is very problematic.
The rabbis you list - including Rabbi Kaminetsky, Rabbi Gedalia Schwats and Rabbi Schachter - have issued statements which are simply not acceptable.
You don't sound like a chareidi Jew or yeshiva product every time you post another comment. There is no Torah obligation to respect talmidi chachomim that you feel are seriously wrong and are distorting Yiddishkeit. Do you respect Yoshka?
Rav Sternbuch did not create the Sikrikin - that is utterly false.
I assume you take strong issue with the Gra - who was also "intolerant"of good people who had views he viewed as harmful e.g, the Chassidim. .He told people"Beware of the Maskilim - because they have good hearts" There are wonderful people amongst Secular, Reform and Conservative Jews - that doesn't mean that they are to be respected when they work against what the Torah tells us is right.
Finally I don't accept your competence as a psycholgoist to declare anyone who doesn't accept the halachaof your favorite poskim must be crazy.
what is fictitious Moe?
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, R' Shternbuch has parted ways from the Eda BD, who used inflammatory language against him. Similar inflammatory language was used in the Lithuanian camp a year ago. Then more extreme language was used by a relic of the now defunct Shas party against those who wear Kipa Sruga. A so-called Rosh yeshiva was demonstrating his knowledge of lavatorial insults.
Then one has to question your claim that these are about being "more religious". So are the sick-krikim more religious than the Posek whom they bash?
A few years ago these nutters thought that Gedolei HaDor were not religious enough, and they would throw stones at them. Sure, there is genuine religious discussion and dispute, but is violence part of being religious? Of course, when it comes to justified military violence, against enemies, rodfim, of course the army is treif.
I don't either agree with any of the Rabbanim that I listed. That is why they are not my Moreh Derech.
ReplyDeleteMy whole point is that even if you don't agree with them, and even if you are convinced that they are wrong in certain areas, you have to realize that in the big picture these are tzaddikim - maybe imperfect tzaddikim.
You have to know the difference between someone who has left the path - like Yoshke in your example, and l'havdil these tzaddikim that I just listed.
You don't have to agree with everything that Rav Kook said, but you do have to understand that he was an amazing tzaddik. And if we could one day be in Gan Eden with him we would be very lucky. And with that said, he is not my Moreh Derech. My tremendous respect for him on the one hand, and my refusal to accept him as my Moreh Derech on the other hand is not a contradiction. And this is what many in the charedi world don't understand.
The Gra's opposition might have helped to keep Chasidim from going off. But today, obviously in the big picture it makes no difference if you are litvishe or chasididsh - Kulam Kedoshim. I am not chasidish because I disapprove of certain things they do, but at the same time I realize that there "errors" are minor and surely they are tzaddikim and they have my highest respect. And I would love to receive a Bracha from the great Chasidic Rebbes.
You have to have the wisdom to differentiate between relatively minor "errors" and major issues.
Yoshke was of course a Rasha, but L'havdil Rav Kook, Chasidim, Rav Schachter, Rav Rabinowitz, Rav Willig etc. are all kedoshim even if they are wrong in some areas - because in the scheme of things those are relatively minor issues.
In regard to you statement that Rav Sternbuch did not create the Sikrikim. You are not understanding. Rav Sternbuch indirectly created them by not understanding the concept that you could disagree with someone and still consider him to be a lamed vav tzaddik. Anyone who he disagrees with -whether a zionist (Rav Kook) or MO (R' Yoshe Ber), is no good.
But there isn't karma. That's a Buddhist concept. Besides, when non-Buddhists invoke "karma," they usually mean to justify whatever happened. It's a hip updating of, "He got what was coming to him."
ReplyDeleteRav Shternbuch certainly did not create the sikrikim. But it is an important question to trace how this fringe group developed. Or to put it another way, it is/is it an unintended consequence of Hareidi ideology in general and the eda in particular of demonsing everyone who makes the slightest move towars modernity, rationalism or lenience./?
ReplyDeleteonce again i will mention the Netziv, who blamed the "hareidim" at the time of the Hurban, since they would do exactly the same. this Netziv in his Emek Hadavar was both rejected as an argument on this blog when i raised it, and also accepted when it suited another argument.
I think it is laughable that you compare MO to reform/conservative, when the other half of the Eda is doing precisely that to R' Shternbuch!
Moshe Ahron: You may have been born into a Charedi family and/or attended Chareidi yeshivos, but your entire hashkafos and life outlook on these as well as on other issues you've commented on, betray a belief system vastly different than normative Chareidi hashkofos. Your outlook is more in line with modern orthodoxy on this as well as the other issues you've discussed, such as gittin issues.
ReplyDelete@Eddie - again why are you singling out Rav Sternbuch? Please provide us with something besides your conjecture as to where the Sikrikim developed.Please explain how your complaints against the Edah and Rav Sternbuch don't equally apply to the Chofetz Chaim, Chazon Ish,Rav Moshe Feinstein, etc etc
ReplyDeleteThe Netziv has a very nice drasha - but in fact he acted the same way that you dislike. He was chareidi.. Please provide evidence that the Netziv behaved in the tolerant way you ascribe to the more advance MO.
It is obvious that you don't chareidim in general.
Finally please provide evidence that half of the Eda considers Rav Sternbuch reform/conservative? If they really thought that way he would not be in a senior role in the Eda.
To add to my comment:
ReplyDeleteI recently read how someone from R' Shmuel Auerbach's camp said that "nebach R' Chaim Kanievsky left the Derech HaTorah"!
Surely you realize that that is ridiculous even if R' Chaim Kanievsky is wrong in that dispute. And surely R' Shmuel Auerbach is also a great man even if he is wrong in that dispute. And surely one is right and one is wrong, and yet they are both great people.
And we have Satmar who thinks that Agudah & Degel HaTorah is no good for working with the Israeli government. Isn't it crazy if a Satmar person doesn't think that R' Chaim Kanievsky is a tzaddik?!
You only realize this logic when it applies to your Gedolim.
But you should realize that the same logic applies to R' Herschel Schachter - he is a living Sefer Torah! Whether he is wrong or right about the relationship of Torah and Madda or whatever else you find controversial, he is still a great man. These are "minor" matters. Don't over exaggerate and compare it to yoshka or the maskilim. That is the problem, every issue is over exaggerated, and turned into one of the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. And then we go full circle where these Sikrikim call Rav Sternbuch a "reform rabbi". I don't know the details of the dispute surrounding the "graves", but I am certain that even if Rav Sternbuch is making a mistake, he is still a great man. But he taught his followers not like that. He taught them that if you are "wrong" about something then you are no good!
Are the issues being disputed among frum yidden today any bigger than the disagreements among the Tannaim, Amoraim, and Rishonim? Surely, all of them were tzaddikim even if they were wrong.
Of course there are some major issues where an incorrect opinion could make someone no good. The maskilim were bad. But the problem is orthodox society exaggerates and makes everything such a major issue.
In summary, you think the disputes between the frum yidden is like the dispute with Yoshka or the maskilim and you therefore lose respect with your disputant.
However, in truth the disputes among frum yidden are like the disputes between Hillel and Shammai, and Rambam and the Ramban, and therefore you should have the highest respect for the Religious Zionist Rabbanim and R' Schachter and R' Willig.
What do you think R' Herschel Schachter or R' Nachum Rabinowitz (Rosh Yeshiva of Malei Adumim) does the whole day? Learn Torah, daven, medakdek in halacha etc.
What is the issue? land for peace? Shleimus Haaretz? Aschalta D'Geula? secular education? Har Habayis? Joining the army? Kollel?
These things are important, but it doesn't make a great man not great for having a wrong opinion. As evidence: If in the Olam Haemes you find out that the Chazon Ish was wrong about all these issues and R' Kook was right, surely you would agree that the Chazon Ish is still a great man!
@Moshe Ahron I addressed these issues in a previous comment above. You clearly do not accept the mainstream chareidi position and the issues involved - despite your claims - are not minor.
ReplyDelete@Moshe Ahron - you still don't understand that the chareidi outlook is not the result of psychopathology or lack of understanding of Judaism etc etc.
ReplyDeleteIt is a deliberative well thought out approach.
The only question I have is why you think you are chareidi when you ascribe its basis inpathology?
Rav Shternbuch remains very much part of and the Ravaad of the Eidah.
ReplyDeleteI mainly want to express that this incident shows that this has nothing to do with halacha or religion, it is mainly political.
ReplyDeleteI am criticising that chareidi rabbanim accepted riots (that mostly were equally motivated by some kind of politics, not by honest religiosity) without openly condemning them as long as the riots did not go against them.
A long, long time ago rabbanim like Rav Sternbuch should have expressed that rioting is an un-jewish thing to do. Namely, I cannot understand how Rav Sternbuch could go without condemning demonstrations in front of hospitals and doctor's residences, because those hospitals and doctors had tried to save a small (hareidi) child form his abusive mother.
As far as why I consider myself Chareidi - me and my family are American Chareidim which is very different than Israeli Chareidim. The American term is really Yeshivish. Chareidi is an Israeli term, however, lately it started being used in America.
ReplyDeleteMy views are pretty mainstream among American Chareidim. Most of the people in my Shul would say that all the Rabbanim I listed above are tzaddikim, but it is still not the path that they follow.
Only in Israel is that concept of thinking they are tzadikim on the one hand, but not willing to follow on the other hand, so foreign.
Getting back to our disagreement: Why is it that only in this generation are there so many outstanding talmidei chachamim who are bad?
Where are the lists of Tannaim, Amoraim, and Rishonim who went off the derech? Don't say Elsiha ben Avuyah. That is only one person. Where are the lists of "bad" Talmidei Chachamim with large followings who are medakdek in halacha?
This isn't the first generation that dealt. with important issues.
The Tannaim also debated important issues.
But Shammai realized that Hillel was a great man even if he was wrong. We should do the same
@DT "again why are you singling out Rav Sternbuch?"
ReplyDeleteIf you read my post on a proper screen instead of your treif iphone, (kidding), you will notice i am not singling our R' Shternbuch. In fact i concurred with your statement that he did NOT create the sikrikim.
Actually, the other half of the Eda, ie his ex colleagues on the BD called him a zaken mamre. So perhaps it is not quite conservative, but it is nevertheless setting the fuse alight, since a zaken mamre is chayav mitah.
"Please provide evidence that the Netziv behaved in the tolerant way you ascribe to the more advance MO"
This is pretty good evidence:
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/chofetz-chaim-disapproved-of-netzivs.html
"It is obvious that you don't chareidim in general."
that i don't ... what? Understand, agree with, love?
I think the most interesting point you raise is this:
"Please explain how your complaints against the Edah and Rav Sternbuch
don't equally apply to the Chofetz Chaim, Chazon Ish,Rav Moshe
Feinstein, etc"
RMF was different from Rav Shach for example. The hazon ish was before my lifetime, so i don't know much about him. RMF would visit the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R' Soloveichik etc, and even sit on a BD with them.
I am not pointing the finger at the etc etc, but would you agree that the Gemara says that any generation (and its leaders) where the temple is not rebuilt is as if they destroyed it?
Or that the day Shammai took over the Sanhedrin and passed 16 or 18 edicts was like the day the golden calf was built?
So there is legitimate criticism even of talmudic sages by the Talmud! there is no immunity, even for great sages - this seems to be what the gemara is teaching. Of course, this is inconvenient to the Hareidi ideology (as encapsulated by Gafni) that you only need to obey the Gedolim to be a Hareidi.
So i think the missing words were "agree with" chareidim.
The Gra was punished by history (because the hasidism he excommunicated became in fact an important movement within normative judaism). So yes, his condemnation of hasidism definitly takes away from his greatness.
ReplyDelete@Discuss - no the Gra was not punished by history.-though I am not sure how history punishes anyone. The Chassidim changed as the result of the Gra's opposition and thus his opposition added to his greatness
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah,
ReplyDeleteLook at the world that your thinking created. A world where frum yidden fight and don't respect each other. And what have you gained? Did the Chasid become Litvish? Did the religious zionist become chareidi? Did the MO guy become yeshivish?
However, my vision is a world where we each follow our Rav and still respect the other groups of frum yidden, We respect them, admire them, and love them, but we don't follow in their path. Isn't my world a more beautiful world? Isn't it the world of Moshiach?
well, obviously you are a hassid of the mitnagdim, so nothing anyone can say will take away from the greatness of your wonder-rebbe.
ReplyDeleteBut from a neutral perspective, it took a lot from his greatness. In fact, the most widely know fact about the gra is just that: that he made a historic mistake by banning hasidism.
He should have given up his senior role in the eda at latest when Tuvia weiss insistend on riots in front of hadassa hospital.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is way too little tolerance for righteous people with differing opinions among Israeli chareidim. The situation is must better in the US, but there is pressure for us to become more like EY in this respect. It's pressure we need to resist. The misplaced kanaus of Israeli chareidism, the black and white viewpoint, is not something I admire.
ReplyDeleteCan't speak for others (this time). all I meant was a dynamic was created when the eida employed or justified violence In the past. OK now it's turned around. Do I think that it is OK? No. Expected? Absolutely
ReplyDeleteNo one will deny that Rav Kook was a tzadik but many if not most will admit that his hashkofa is very problematic.
ReplyDeleteof course there are those who deny that rav kook was a tzadikk!!!! saying otherwise is a white wash. the satmar rebbe's tshuvah on rav kook uses lots of negative, horrible phrases about rav kook and nowhere does he even hint that "rav kook was a tzaddik with a problematic world view".
Moe, since the term "Charedi" is ONLY used in Israel, while no one uses this term to describe themselves in America, let's just start a movement to debunk and drop the term "Charedi" forever because it is mostly used as a pejorative term to label others who are different in noticable ways. "Charedim" has become like calling certain folks "Amish" (a very loaded word in English) because they have long beards and wear black.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with using the term "Jews" or "Yehudim" or "Torah observant Jews" or "Shomrei Torah Umitzvot" or "Shomrei Shabbat" (the classical Halachic definition for a religious Jew is whether a Jew keeps Shabbos or not and NOTHING else, the rest is all political labeling and claptrap) since in America that is the way it's used when they talk about a "Jewish coalition" or "Jewish voters" when Aguda, OU, YI, RCA and others come together without any problems to lobby for or oppose laws or things they don't like.
This term "Charedi" is a TOXIC Israeli invention and must be stopped. In Israel they (i.e. the oilem goilem) invented the term "Israeli" for people who are secular Jews, so that both friends and foes started using the term "Charedi" for the so-called ultra-Orthodox Jews, who while they may have been "ultra-Orthodox" were still "Jews" while "Charedim" just means "nut jobs" to most people -- proof is that American Chasidish and Yeshivish people NEVER refer to themselves as "Charedim" that is only done by "academics" and journalists who are following the Israeli pattern and importing that vile poison into America!
Are you up to this job or do you only hang around here to spout "politically correct" nonsense while you "police" everyone you don't like?
@Ben Waxman - I remember hearing from one of my rebbeim in yeshiva that (I think it was Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin ) strongly opposed Rav Kook and refused to even look at his face. When he was asked who would be Cohen Gadol when Moshiach came he responded "Rav Kook". When surprise was expressed - he answered that while he strongly disagreed with Rav Kook's views on many things he still viewed him as a tzadik.
ReplyDelete@Discuss - you are truly a "brave" man - hiding behind a pseudonym and denoucing others for not being brave. Rav Sternbuch did in fact publicly denounce the riots as did Rav Eliashiv.
ReplyDeletePlease provide evidence that Rav Weiss approved of the violent riots as opposed to demonstrations.
See my posts from that time
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/rav-sternbuch-statement-on-riots-in.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/rav-sternbuch-letter-finally-reported.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/chareidi-consensus-jonathan-rosenblum.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/violence-leadership-in-chareidi-world.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/charedi-health-minister-criticized-for.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/hadassah-hospital-officials-harassed.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/insensitivity-and-bias-against.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/chareidi-boycott-of-hadassah-bluff.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/endangering-life-because-of-lies-about.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/child-abuse-case-leads-to-chareidi.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/psychiatrist-concludes-mother-is-fit-to.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/mother-accused-of-abuse-mentally-fit.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/wall-posters-slandering-hadassah.html
@Discuss - I am glad you have appointed yourself the "neutral" i.e.,objective person in this discussion while you have declared that I am biased. Nice debate technique but it doesn't compensate for the reality that you are wrong about your facts
ReplyDeleteThe Tzemech Tzedek and the Klausenberger Rebbe both have publicly stated that the Gra's opposition played an important (and postive) role in the development of Chassidus. You might want to also read R Avraham Korman's work "Sects and Movements in Judaism" where he shows that major changes have produced resistance which has served to either prove the validity of a movement when it overcomes the resistance or push it outside of Judaism.
Your "widely known fact" is the Chassidim spin on events. The Novominsker Rebbe presented a similar version in Yeshurun where he said that the Gra's action were "maaseh Satan" That is not the view that is accepted in Litvische circles and a strong rebutall was published by one of his Litvishe friends from Yeshiva Chaim Berlin.
@Moshe Ahron - do you accept the fact that what I said is normative thinking of Jews through the ages while your view is basically a modern view of tolerance that has developed in modern times as a result of liberal secular attitudes
ReplyDeleteI am dealing with reality and you are dealing with fantasy. You might note that the gemora Shabbos says that there will still be a need for weapons in Messianic times because there will still be wars - apparently between Jews.
OK so Rav Diskin felt that RK was a tzaddik. that doesn't change in one iota how the SR (and others) felt about him.
ReplyDeleteI would argue the opposite - in many ways, history has shown the Gra to have been fully justified. It is precisely the Chassidism that he battled with which produced the first major false messiah since the Sabbetai Zvi/Jacob Frank episodes.
ReplyDeleteIn the old yishuv, majority of Gedolim acknowledged rav Kook's greatness. However, there were peopel in both Hassidic and Mitnagdic positions who denounced him, and as far as i know R' Wasserman was one of the fiercest critics of R' kook.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100% RaP. I think the label should be dropped everywhere, Eretz Yisroel included. I only used the term conversationally since the other conversant utilized it in his self-description. Otherwise all labels, Chareidi, MO, Orthodox, Reform, etc. should all be completely abolished and removed from the vernacular. A Jew is a Jew.
ReplyDeleteRDE: Do you by any chance have a copy or link to that correspondence between the Novominsker and whoever responded to him in Yeshurun? Was it the current Novominsker or his father?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Moshe Ahrons vision. Yaakov divided his wives and children into two camps - so that one could flee if the other was attacked. This is the way how heterogeneity can be strength. Divide, form new groups, but respect each other. Division is the seed for new growth, but you should do it leshem shamayim and not leshem your own kavod.
ReplyDelete"That is not the view that is accepted in Litvische circles"
ReplyDeleteOf course not, since the litvishe, per definitionem, are the pro-ban-party.
I suppose, the truth is somewhere in the middle. It is fine for you to defend your litvish point of view, but you should distinguish between a partial, litvish perspective and historical facts.
By the way, failing to distinguish between your own partial position and neutral positions is a general weakness of this blog. However, I do not see how you could change that, it seems to be an intrinsic trait of your personality.
In this particular case (mother with Münchhausen-by-proxy syndrome starving her child almost to death), even demonstrations were not called for, neither in front of Hadassa Hospital (where it endangered lives of patients since it blocked access for the ambulances), nor in front of the responsible doctor.
ReplyDeleteThe medical crew went to see Tuvia Weiss (as far as I understood they negotiated free access for ambulances - how sad that not endangering jewish lives has to be negotiated with someone who claims to be gadol), but the demonstrations went on after the meeting, to my great dismay.
What is not understandable to outsiders: the eda (or the different groups affiliated with the eida) is a strictly reglemented society, that claims to function only according the dictums of their gedolim. Any deviance (from the dictum of those sages) is severly punished. So how can it be that whole groups within this society organise riots or uncivilties without the explicit or implicit consent of those sages?
Therefore, a public declaration is warranted when the riots are not conform to piskei rabbanim.
"poskim like R' Herschel Schachter" - Authentic Torah poskim do not lead and enable corrupt, feminist divorce on demand gangs like the YU ORA organization.
ReplyDeleteDespite your slick, disingenuous rhetoric, you are evidently a propagandist and troll for the YU ORA organization, an organization that aggressively seeks to uproot Torah divorce laws and eliminate any halachic rights for Jewish men.
http://rabbischachter.blogspot.com/
"We respect them, admire them, and love them" - The same way Rabbi Schachter's feminist ORA gang respects and loves Jewish men involved in divorce conflicts?
ReplyDeleteYour "vision" is actually a vision of a grossly falsified feminist Judaism where "rabbis" give bogus hechsherim to wholesale divorce on demand, destruction of Jewish families, and stripping Jewish men of any halachic rights.
http://rabbischachter.blogspot.com/
@Moe Ginsburg - no I don't have a link. The article by the Novominsker (the current rebbe) appeared in the journal Yeshurun. The response was published as a small sefer by Rabbi Katzenstein - I have it somewhere. I think the Novominsker responded to the criticism possibly in Rabbi Katzenstein's volume.
ReplyDelete@Discuss - wrote "I suppose, the truth is somewhere in the middle."
ReplyDeleteit is nice that you are willing to be a bit more flexible in your dogmatic comments and your trumpeting that you know the facts - and acknowledge that truth lies between your view and mine. However you haven't presented any sources other than you own opinionated comments.
since you feel so strongly that I present biased opinions while you know the true historic facts - it is time that you started you own blog and spread the "truth". Otherwise you are going to be stuck with the pesky fact that I think your "facts" are largely your biased opinion.
@Discuss - you keep repeating your claims - but the facts are well known that the riff raff that joyfully riot are not part of this regimented society. As the Toldos Ahron Rebbe once lamented - they wake up in the morning hoping for action of any type. They are not subservient to authority accept when it agrees with them. they are looking for excitement
ReplyDeleteRav Sternbuch did in fact make a public announcement - but it didn't seem to stop the rioters.
Daas Torah,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote that R' Shmuel Kamenetsky said things that are unacceptable. That shows how out of touch you are with the yeshiva world in America. R' Shmuel Kamenetsky is universally respected as the Gadal Hador of America. Ask anyone, whether in Lakewood, Brooklyn, Monsey, Baltimore, Waterburry, Long Island etc.
If you don't realize that R' Shmuel Kamenetsky is one of the Gedolei Hador then it is clearly you who is not chareidi. Every Rav in Lakewood, Brooklyn, and Monsey agrees with me.
And you are doing exactly what I criticized you for. You are exaggerating the importance of every minor thing. Every chareidi and every Rav will tell you that R' S K might be wrong about this or that but it doesn't take away from his Gadlus.
And so too R' Chaim Kanievsky is also wrong about many things and it doesn't take away from his Gadlus.
Wow, I seem to have hit a nerve...
ReplyDeleteWe fundamentally agree, that a major bad issue causes a person to become bad, while a minor bad issue just causes a person to become an imperfect tzaddik. The problem is, that Chariedi society considers everything a major issue. If you think it is "Aschalta D'Geulah" then you can't be a tzaddik anymore!
ReplyDeleteThat is why you should have some historical perspective, and ask ourselves where are the lists of Tannaim, Amoraim, and Rishonim who are bad? Why only in this generation? The answer is that we exaggerate everything.
Daas Torah,
ReplyDeleteHere is the proof that I am right: If in the next world you find out that it is Aschalta D'Geula, and the current kollel system is wrong, and most people should go to the army and college, do you think the Chazon Ish would still be considered a great tzaddik? I think yes.
If you answer yes, then I am right.
And if you understand that the answer is yes, then you should also understand that those Rabbanim who argue with the Chazon Ish are also tzaddikim even if they are wrong.
his condemnation of hasidism definitly takes away from his greatness
ReplyDeleteWhat a ridiculous idea. Pure foolishness.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20399
ReplyDeletePages 831 - 854 is the Noviminskers criticism.
Do you know the name of Rabbi Katzenstein's sefer?
ReplyDelete@Moshe Ahron - I don't understand your point and you obviously don't understand mine
ReplyDeletePages 831- 854
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hebrewbooks.org/20399
See this as well:
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/07/chabad-rav-yaakov-kaminetsky-messianic.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/07/novominkser-rebbe-shlita-dont-bring-up.html
@Moshe Ahron - we clearly travel in different circles. I was just in America talking to American talmidei chachomim and the general response was - 1) Rav Kaminetsky is recognized as a gadol 2) But he is not a posek but a rosh yeshiva 3) rabbonim are afraid to publicly speak against him because of the negative consequences or because they feel that their criticism against an accepted gadol will not be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteSo is is siimply not so that every rav in Lakewooed, Brooklyn and Monsey agrees with you.
4) Furthermore in the case of Rabbi Reinman and other issues Rabbi Kaminestky was widely criticized and forced to retract his position.
Bottom line: It is obvious that you have no access to major rabbonim or if you do they simply don't confide in you.
I once asked Rav Pam a question and he said he only answers such questions for people he knows.
The people in my circles clearly hold that the errors Rav Kaminetsky has made takes away for his Gadlus.
That's an absurd example. Why don't you next ask what happens if in the next world you find out that the Reform were right? That won't happen because the Reform weren't right and it won't happen that you'll find out that the kollel system is wrong and the army and college are right.
ReplyDeletePlease be patient with me. I understand your position.
ReplyDeleteYour position is, that certain Religious Zionist Rabbis are not tzaddikim because they are “bad” on major issues. In other words they disagree with the Chazon Ish on issues like Aschalta D’geulah, Shleimus Haaretz, Hallel on Yom Haatzmut, Army service, Kollel, Secular education, Heter Mechirah etc.
You claim that these are major issues, and they are therefore a red line – if you cross this red line you are no longer a Gadol. So R' Yaakov Ariel, R’ Nachum Rabinovitch, R’ Eliezer Melamed, R' Schachter, etc. can’t be a Gadol.
I agree that if a major issue is crossed then a person is no good. I just don’t think that these issues – in the current context - are major issues. Being wrong on these issues will just make someone an imperfect tzaddik.
But if you really believe that these are major issues, then if in the Oilam Ha’Emes we find out that the Chazon Ish was mistaken regarding these so called “major isssues” then the Chazon Ish would not be a Gadol.
Do you think that if the Chazon Ish was mistaken then he really wasn’t a Gadol? Yes or No?
@Moshe Ahron - I don't claim that gedolim are infallible.
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe Feinstein was once asked whether saying a rishon made a mistake was heresy. He replied that saying they made a mistake isn't a sign of a heresy but shows a lack of intelligence.
Perhaps the problem is defining a gadol. It is not someone who has mastered shas, has an IQ above that of 99% of the population.
What defines a gadol for you?
Rabbi Adlerstein on the Cross Currents
ReplyDeleteblog has written a post stating my exact position. He felt that R' Shmuel
Kamenetsky was completely wrong about vaccinations, yet he was equally adamant
that R' Shmuel Kamenetsky is still one of the Gedolei Hador, and he implied
that he is just an imperfect tzaddik. I don't see where the people you
spoke to in America say differently. They feel that he is wrong about
certain things. That doesn't mean they feel that he is not one of the
Gedolei Hador.
As you know R'
Chaim Kanievsky believes that Jews have a different number of teeth than Goyim.
Obviously that is ridiculous and factually wrong. And even uneducated people
who are not doctors would realize intuitively that it is ridiculous. But, R' Chaim Kanievsky is human and is
entitled to make mistakes. That doesn’t
take away from his Gadlus.
The problem is that you think that being a religious zionist automatically excludes a person from being a Gadol. Do I have that right?
ReplyDeleteA Gadol is a living Messilas Yesharim.
R' Diskin moved to EY in 1878 and passed away in 1898.
ReplyDeleteR Kook was born 1865 and only moved to EY in1904.
They almost certainly never met.
@Moshe Ahron - what is a living Messilas yesharim - and why does that give someone authority over others? Or perhaps you are totally focused on righteousness and not authority?
ReplyDelete@Eddie you apparently misunderstood what Rav Moshe Feinstein said.
ReplyDeletethat is entirely possible - if so, please correct me.
ReplyDeleteWell the first step in the Mesillas Yesharim is Torah - "Torah brings to Zehirus". The bigger the Talmid Chacham the more he is becoming a living messilas yesharim - of course he has to also excel in the Ramchal's other steps.
ReplyDeleteI want to make sure that i understand your position. Could you please answer. Is it your opinion that if someone is a religious zionist then they are automatically disqualified from being a Gadol or from being a tzaddik?
@DT "The people in my circles clearly hold that the errors Rav Kaminetsky has made takes away for his Gadlus."
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this approach is that should errors be made by Gedolim in your circles, it would a) be difficult to admit these errors were actually errors and b) you certainly wouldn't go so far as to accept that such errors take away from their Gadlus.
I will give an easy example - the satmar rebbe. he obviously was a great scholar. But his ideology led him to many disasters, and he was responsible, as were many of his contemporaries - for not doing anything or even causing followers to be killed rather than attempt to save their lives.
this has suddenly turned into a very good and interesting discussion.
ReplyDeleteBut what is DT's definition of a gadol? And is it even something to discuss rationally?
I would make the following comments about the contemporary Hareidi concept of a Gadol.
A Gadol is someone that is a scholar and is appointed as a political/spiritual / halachic leader by the apparatus that self-claims Divine power. It is very similar to the Shi'ite Islamic system in Iran, where the Ayotollah is appointed by the militant "haredi" system, and anyone who disobeys him is called an enemy of Allah.
It is not purely about scholarship, but about meeting the needs of the political movers, and the media.
The type of Rav that Moshe Ahron lists will not be recognized as gadol in Hareidi circles. It is not about knowledge, but about ideology and meeting societal needs. There is a story in Rav Goren's biography about his relationship with Rav Shach. Around 1960, after the brisker rav was niftar, rav Shach approached Goren and asked him to set up a yeshiva together. Rav Shach would not approach just an ordinary rabbi for this. But after 1967, and Rav Goren's interpretation of events , and obviously the famous machlokes, he was derided across board.
Even Rav Yosef, who in terms of his vast knowledge and literary/halachic output was never fully accepted in Ashkenazi circles as a Gadol haDor, but only a default posek who doesn't fit in with the ideology of Hareidi Daas.
In the Jewish Observer, there were a few articles trying to define Daas Torah, and one of these was trying to say that the Gadol HaDor is magically appointed. Again, can this be discussed rationally?
Regarding whether Rishonim ever made mistakes, unfortunately I cannot accept the comments attributed to RMF. The Tannaim made mistakes, so why can't a Rishon make mistakes? This is a circular argument. you have to accept that RMF is infallible in order to make the claim you are making, even though you deny that you believe in infallibility.
@Moshe Ahron - I assume you believe that followers of Mussar have the highest percentage of gedolim and that Torah Scholarship is not the most important element of being a gadol?
ReplyDeleteI personally would not exclude a religious zionist from being a gadol or a tzadik.
@Eddie Rav Moshe Feinstein is not denying that rishonim make errors - but he is saying that the likelihood of our being able to identify it is not high.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly he says on himself that when someone thinks he has found an error in his reasoning - he should examine it very carefully before concluding it is an actual error because he has put a lot of effor and thought into what he writes.
The Seridei Aish expresses a similar point.
Seridei Aish (1:113): I frequently comment on the apparent contradiction found in Avos (6:5) concerning those factors involved in acquiring Torah i.e. analysis of the students and faith in our Sages. Furthermore, what does faith in our Sages have to do with acquiring Torah? However, the explanation is that if one doesn’t believe in the truth of the words of the sages then one readily dismisses them for the slightest reason. With an attitude of condescension, one proclaims that they didn’t know what they were talking about. Consequently, one makes no effort to investigate and try to validate what they said. However, in the end we find that in fact we are the ones who have erred. … Therefore it is characteristic of the truly wise to presume that the sages have not erred, G d forbid! In fact we, with our limited perspective and limited understanding, have erred. On the other hand to blindly believe and not struggle to comprehend with our intellect the apparent difficulties, saying simply that they knew and we need merely to mindlessly rely on them - that is also not correct. We need to wrestle mightily with the apparent contradictions and doubts as if they are people like us. With this approach, we will come to a much profounder and sharper comprehension. Thus, we see that both factors - emunas chachomim (faith in our sages) and pilpul (intellectual evaluation) - work together to the purpose of the acquisition of Torah.
"I personally would not exclude a religious zionist from being a gadol or a tzadik." Thank you!
ReplyDeleteTorah scholarship and mussar are both extremely important just like you need solids and liquid to survive - one without the other won't get you far.
I certainly believe in the extreme importance of following the path of R' Ysrael Salanter's talmidim. But as I pointed out the very first step is "Torah". A person can't be a Gadol without being a real big time Talmid Chacham.
However, a person could be a tzaddik even if he is not a talmid chacham. As it says in pirkei avos "an Am Haaretz can't be a chasid". Which implies that as long as you are not a complete am haaretz you could still be a chasid. And besides a tzaddik is a lower level than a chasid, so it could be that even an Am Haaretz could be a tzaddik.
Moshe Ahron: Is it your opinion that if someone is Open Orthodox then they are automatically disqualified from being a Gadol or from being a tzaddik?
ReplyDeleteDoes the Mishnah in Yevamos not say that despite their disagreement over issues leading to mamzeirut, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel still intermarried? And does not the Gemara go on to explain that they would respect each others opinion enough to say "I am a mamzeir according to your opinion"?
ReplyDeleteThe reality you describe is certainly common in Jewish history, all too common, but the Gemarah in Yevamos makes very clear that it is not the ideal we should strive for.
These are very good points. there are different categories of knowledge that are discussed by Rishonim and earlier sages. I try to steer clear of halachic discussions, since saying they erred in halacha would be rather arrogant of me. In issues discussed by Rishonim, eg on the perush to the Torah, there may sometimes be statements that can be challenged. but my primary thought behind this was that in some cases there are debates between rishonim, or even between acharonim and rishonim, one claiming the other erred. So the possibility of error is already admitted by previous gedolim, hence whether i identify it or not is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAgain, there are cases where in the gemara or Mishneh the sages admit an error, and may even be corrected by a small person or am haaretz. So in these cases there is no "emunas chachamim".
This is a new one...
ReplyDeleteWhat's your source that Rav Tzvi Yehuda ever went to the Brisker Rav's shiurim?
Moshe Ahron: Is it your opinion that if someone is Open Orthodox then they are automatically disqualified from being a Gadol or from being a tzaddik?
ReplyDeletedo you accept the fact that what I said is normative thinking of Jews through the ages while your view is basically a modern view of tolerance that has developed in modern times as a result of liberal secular attitudes
ReplyDeletelooking at your remarks, i'm not sure what is the issue here.
if your position is that the intolerant view is normative position, than what is your problem with people coming down on rav stermbuch? he gave a psak which other rabbis disagreed with and these guys are expressing said rabbis displeasure. they aren't showing respect or tolerance of another view? OK but that is normative judaism, right?
OK he is your rav so you're upset about this incident, but how does this fall outside of the acceptable range of permitted disagreement? people like rav shalom cohen, reps of the eida speaking on the radio, chareidi newspapers like yated, use much more insulting terms and language than these guys.
@Ben Waxman - your comment is rather astounding. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and protest against being unfairly criticized.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the culture of toleration o mistaken views is this assumption that you need to tolerate anybody who can open their mouth against you or those you feel are correct.
@Mike I assume you are aware of the 18 gezeiros described in Shabbos( 17a)
ReplyDeleteAnd another?-When one vintages [grapes] for the vat [I.C., to manufacture wine], Shammai maintains: It is made fit (to become unclean]; while Hillel ruled, It is not made fit.8 Said Hillel to Shammai: Why must one vintage [grapes] in purity, yet not gather [olives] in purity?9 If you provoke me, he replied, I will decree uncleanness in the case of olive gathering too. A sword was planted in the Beth Hamidrash and it was proclaimed, ‘He who would enter, let him enter, but he who would depart, let him not depart!’10 And on that day Hillel sat submissive before Shammai, like one of the disciples,11 and it was as grievous to Israel12 as the day when the [golden] calf was made. Now, Shammai and Hillel enacted [this measure], but they would not accept it from them; but their disciples came13 and enacted it, and it was accepted from them.14
The Yerushalmi's version is that Beis Shammai killed Beis Hillel
תלמוד ירושלמי (וילנא) מסכת שבת פרק א
תנא ר' יהושע אונייא תלמידי ב"ש עמדו להן מלמטה והיו הורגין בתלמידי ב"ה.
actually my question is why you're so upset. OK, your rav was insulted. but that's "the game" as you would have it played. you're upset that people do to your rav what you said is perfectly acceptable. why are you so mad at "the rabble" or people who criticize RS?
ReplyDeleteFurther, don't Chazal say one of the reasons the Bat Kol decides like Beit Hillel is that they were more respectful of Beit Shammai? And didn't the other Tannaim remove Rabban Gamaleil from the Nesiut for being disrespectful of R. Yehoshuah in their disputes? And doesn't the Gemara say that the reason that Yerav'am ben Nevat merited kingship is that he rebuked Shlomo when the latter was wrong, but that the reason Yerav'am was punished is because he rebuked Shlomo publicly and disrespectfully?
ReplyDeleteSure. But which of those does the gemara set up as an ideal, and which as a cause of the Churban?
ReplyDeletethe story is on Rav Aviner's blog
ReplyDeletehere is a summary:
Visits to the Brisker Rav
Our Rabbi would go to hear the Divrei Torah of the Brisker Rav,
Ha-Griz - Ha-Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik, and when he was there, the
"zealots" (extreme anti-Zionists) would insult him. When Ha-Rav
Shabatai Shmueli, the Yeshiva's secretary, heard about this, he was
shaken and turned to our Rabbi to stop going there. Ha-Rav Avraham
Shapira also attempted to convince our Rabbi to stop, but he wanted to
hear Divrei Torah from Ha-Griz. Ha-Rav Shmueli and Ha-Rav Shapira
requested that Reb Aryeh Levin - who frequented there – speak with our
Rabbi. He agreed and said to him: "Reb Tzvi Yehudah, you must cease
going there. It does not bring honor to the Torah. It is also
insulting to Maran Ha-Rav ztz"l." Our Rabbi tried to justify continuing
the visits by saying that it does not affect him, and Ha-Griz is one of
the great Rabbis of the generation etc., but Reb Aryeh interrupted him
and said harsh thing about the "zealots," even though there was a great
lost in not hearing Ha-Griz. When our Rabbi heard this from the mouth
of Reb Aryeh, he did not return (It was quite rare for Reb Aryeh to
speak this way since he had incredible patience and was able to endure
anything. If our Rabbi had heard insults about Maran Ha-Rav Kook he
would not have remained quiet).
@Ben Waxman - I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Your words make no sense at all
ReplyDelete@Mike - you are assuming that respect is an absolute value - but you are leaving out all the places where strong criticism was evident
ReplyDelete@Mike was is the ideal and what was one of the reason for the Churban?
ReplyDeleteAll through Shas we find talmidei chachom saying very strong words against those that they disagree with - are you saying that is wrong?
More than that, I am saying the Gemara says they are wrong. It is all too human, when we are dealing with matters of such importance as how to serve God and his Torah, to insist we are right and everyone else is wrong and must listen to us, and especially Talmidei Chachamim. Look at how many of those stories of such strong words end badly, with one or more of the participants dead, in exile or insane. Like the death of Reish Lakish and the resulting insanity and death of R. Yochanan, or the Cherem of R. Eliezer Hagadol. Look at how the gemara in Cheilek praises the Torah of the 3 kings who have no share in Olam Haba. Surely that is intended to be a warning to talmidei chachamim that not every talmid chacham is a tzaddik.
ReplyDeleteThe Gemara in Yevamot describes the respectful behavior of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as the fulfillment of a Messianic prophecy of Zechariah; Chazal don't toss around pesukim like that lightly. Yes, it is very hard to reach that level, and yes, a great many of our greatest sages and leaders fell short of it sometimes. That is normal and very common (we even have the opinion that the sin of Moshe Rabbeinu was to say 'shimu na hamorim'), but it isn't the ideal we are supposed to strive for.
@Mike - why are Chazal referred to as gladiators? Why does Pirkei Avos 2:10 say. THEY [EACH] SAID THREE THINGS. R. ELIEZER SAID: LET THE HONOUR OF THY FRIEND BE AS DEAR TO THEE AS THINE OWN;82 AND BE NOT EASILY PROVOKED TO ANGER;83 AND REPENT ONE DAY BEFORE THY DEATH,84 AND [HE ALSO SAID:] WARM THYSELF BEFORE THE FIRE OF THE WISE,85 AND BEWARE OF THEIR GLOWING COALS,86 THAT THOU MAYEST NOT BE SINGED,87 FOR THEIR BITE IS THE BITE OF A FOX,88 AND THEIR STING IS THE STING OF A SCORPION,89 AND THEIR HISS IS THE HISS OF A SERPENT,90 AND ALL THEIR WORDS ARE LIKE COALS OF FIRE.91
ReplyDeleteIf someone is part of the Open Orthodox movement then he is definitely not a Gadol.
ReplyDeleteMoshe Ahron: Aha! So you too agree subscribing to certain religious philosophies and/or identifying with certain religious sectors effectively disqualifies one from being a tzadik or godol.
ReplyDeleteYet you hold it against others when they do the same. You say it's okay to do so with the Open Orthodox. Others may say it is also okay to do so with the Religious Zionists.
Some people think that "Hagaon Harav Avi Weiss shlita, Mora D'Asra d'Hebrew Institute of Riverdale" is a tzadik and godol. You say they are wrong because he is Open Orthodox and holds of various wrongheaded religious opinions.
What if one comes to the next world or finds out when Moshiach comes that partnership minyanim and women rabbas were the right thing for our generation?
Others take the same position you take on Avi Weiss with the RZs. Now you may split hairs why it's okay for you vis-à-vis the OO but not okay for others vis-à-vis the RZs, but know that is just your opinion.
I would have said that the first part (about your friends' honor) is prescriptive and the latter clause is descriptive. Certainly the tenses of the verbs go that way.
ReplyDeleteI'm not justifying the acts of rabble.
ReplyDeleteLook, with all due respect to Rav Sternbuch's incredible knowledge of Torah and his authority as a posek, when it comes to taking public positions on certain issues he is well known to take extreme spots on the spectrum, to vigorously refuse any possibility of compromise with differing points of view even if they difference only 1% with his and he is not above making disparaging remarks about his political opponents.
And now outside his house we have a mob that is doing the same thing to him, only with less style.
Moshe Aron there are many that subcribe to your world view ..... don't assume not!
ReplyDeleteWhat is unfair criticism? What is normal criticism & what is out of the box criticism?
ReplyDeleteThere is NO NORMATIVE CHAREDI HASHKAFA unanimously agreed upon in the USA
ReplyDeleteThe group of AMERICAN Yeshivish is a real group that is beginning to express its opinion & not ready to lay down dead for the Israeli or Lakewood cement trucks.
ReplyDeletemy point is: given what you believe to be proper conduct, objecting to an attack on your rav has all the weight, all the taste and smell of someone booing the new england patriots in tonight's game.
ReplyDelete@Stanley - what is the basis for these American views? Are they following American rabbonim and rosh yeshiva or are they simply basing themselves on current American social values and ignoring what their rabbeim say?
ReplyDelete@Ben - can you translate this ?
ReplyDelete@Stanley - are you saying that everyone in America makes up there own hashkofa or are there identifiable authorities? Or are you saying that there are yeshivishe chareidim in America who follow the views of Lakewood, Chaim Berllin, Mir and Torah VDaas , there are chassidic American who follow their rebbes and theren ther are the baalei batim who are not highly learned and their values are determined primarily what they get from their non yeshiva environment?
ReplyDeleteyour objection can not be the tone of the attack, the content of the attack, the words used because you hold that rabbis (and their supporters) have every right to attack other rabbis using almost any term they feel like. as you have said many times on this dialogue, modern idea of tolerance (such as those espoused by the netziv) aren't normative judaism. there are almost no limits.
ReplyDeletethe only question is "is the attack fair". OK, so you may not think that the attack on your rav is fair, but they do. their rav does. so once an attack is deemed to be fair, that's it, any word, any tactic, becomes legit.
it just becomes your rav against their rav, or the patriots against seattle. same difference.
look at ponivitch. i don't claim to understand the fight there. however if getting into fights over who davens is fair game, so they can fight over it. one side can't claim that it is wrong when the other side's thugs (sorry, yeshiva boys) beat up the shaliach tzibbur.
i listen to chareidi radio stations all the time. they and their rabbanim didn't hesitate in insulting others. but when some MK insulted them, they went through the roof as if that was the first insult in history. sorry, doesn't work that way.
if the followers of rav sternbach want people to respect him, they have to respect others. it is as simple as that.
karma.
@Ben your program for respecting those you have fundamental differences with might work in America but I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteIf I respect someone who calls me a heretic then he will respect me?! If tolerate a person who perverts the halacha then when I point this out he will respect me? Or maybe you mean to say I should respect him and not point out his deviance.
By and large the rabble who are attacking Rav Sternbuch are not talmidei chachomim. Those that are certainly are not in his league - besides the fact that he is clearly not a daas yachid. The basis of the attack is largely their benefit - financial and power - and has nothing to do with whether anyone treats them respectfully.
Pardon the comparison but I think Chamberlain had a similar analysis. "If we just respect the legitimacy of differences and show our good will by giving up part of Europe I am sure the other side will respect us and there will be peace in our time."
This is the ancient liberal rationalist fantasy. It simple does not work except on people who share this view of man and even then it often fails.
A similar program - if we just provide higher education for 3rd world country then terrorism will disappear. If we just show more respect for communism - then I am sure they will be less hostile and we will live together in peace etc etc.
This approach is rejected by the first mishneh in Bava Metzia. If two people are holding a talis and they both claim it is theirs you divide it. What if one side is respectful and says "Well since only half is mind I will claim half while the other side claims it all. The halacha is that you give the "unreasonable side" 3/4 while the "nice" guy is given 1/4.
Bottom line your program doesn't work and never has - except in certain group therapy programs where everyone agrees to follow the rules. It doesn't work in the real world where there are very fundamental differences in values or where one side stands to lose more then they are willing to accept.
a few points and then i'll drop this:
ReplyDeletethat is exactly what rav soloveitchik taught: his uncle thought that YU was completely and absolutely treif, yet Rav YBS raised funds for him. rav kook tz"l helped one of his opponents get an entry visa to palestine. the latter of course didn't hesitate RK once he arrived here.
az mah? no one, including rabbeinu yona, was in the rambam's league. i have no doubt that today most people would support rabbeinu yona, despite his not being a superstar in the majors. the megillat ester isn't in the ramban's league yet satmar goes by the former.
i see how well things are working out in bnei brak right now. my program enables someone like rav dov lior to talk about how much he respects rav lichtenstein even though their differences are night and day. it isn't that hard to get it.
re baba metzia: oh please.
godwin. i win.
@Ben regarding Rav Solveitchik's effectiveness in the use of power - I heard the following from Rav Michel Shurkin who was very close to him.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rav Soloveitchik agreed to give a shiur in gemora at Stern College he insisted that he wanted no publicity and especially no reporters at the event.
Of course he was ignored and the event received wide coverage. Rav Shurkin said that Rav Soloveitchik did not know how to defend himself and he certainly had no concept of the use of power. He noted that if Rav Schach had been betrayed in such a fashion there would have been massive and painful consequences and thus people thought twice and three times before they would ignore his requests. In contrast no one was concerned about upsetting Rav Soloveitchik because there were no consequences.
Another story from Rav Bulman. Rav Bulman was also very close to Rav Soloveitchik. He was with him when he gave a strong speech on an approach which clearly was not consistent with Rav Solovetichiks hashkofa. When the got back to the hotel room - Rav Soloveitchik cried out in great upset, "Did you hear what I had to tell them"
In short Rav Soloveitchik is a good example of what happens when someone is either ignorant of the use of power or is always being mevatar and people step all over him.
power can only be enforced in certain circumstances
ReplyDeletethe kind of power wielded by R' Shach is longer existent, even in Ponovezh, hence the division and violence there. And the desire for power is the antithesis of torah values, which say "sonneh et ha rabbanut". Since this is not possible for the Haredi-distatorship system, they have reinterpreted this verse to mean the "Rabbanut" ie the Chief rabbinate.
Yes, and others take that position with satmar and nk.
ReplyDelete